Message from @MKUltra

Discord ID: 363521615818129410


2017-09-29 23:49:27 UTC  

On a side note, that ED article is funny as fuck, I had never read it before. Henceforth I'm referring to myself as an apathiest. kek

2017-09-30 02:36:38 UTC  

@Rin what paper are you referring to? Anything with math in it (especially Godel's work) sounds like an interesting read

2017-09-30 02:57:17 UTC  

>trying to use logic to prove an entity that inherently defies logic seems a likely a non-starter
>God is illogical so he shouldn't be reasoned towards
>You are a man of reason and cannot be trusted.
Please kill me.

2017-09-30 02:58:51 UTC  

>Existence is not a positive trait

2017-09-30 02:58:55 UTC  

What?!?

2017-09-30 02:59:00 UTC  

What??

2017-09-30 02:59:04 UTC  

How?

2017-09-30 02:59:30 UTC  

>things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait

2017-09-30 03:02:04 UTC  

To have a positive trait
>Have
>State of being
>Literally asserts postivie existence whereever it is placed.

2017-09-30 03:02:15 UTC  

Rin, I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant something more like the Buddhist anatta, rather than actual non-existence. Is this accurate? Or do you truly argue for the goodness of utter oblivion?

2017-09-30 03:02:24 UTC  

Kind of hard to explain, but basically existence is a prerequisite to any other trait in reality. I'm not sure how that affects it's own ability to be a trait in it's self. Also there's a difference beween traits ascribed to "imagined" agents vs real.

2017-09-30 03:03:01 UTC  

For example, you can describe traits of fictional characters that are true, but utterly false in reality.

2017-09-30 03:03:43 UTC  

For example:

2017-09-30 03:03:53 UTC  

Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker St.

2017-09-30 03:04:11 UTC  

That's true, but not in reality.

2017-09-30 03:04:28 UTC  

That is a contigent existence

2017-09-30 03:04:37 UTC  

It may well be true.

2017-09-30 03:04:50 UTC  

Why would god be any different?

2017-09-30 03:04:56 UTC  

You cannot assert that unless you have seen all existence

2017-09-30 03:05:07 UTC  

God would be in the necessary category.

2017-09-30 03:08:43 UTC  

@Akulakhan I'm not arguing for the goodness of anything here, just trying to parse a complex topic and indentify it's flaws. Like I said, it's an interesting line of thought, but it doesn't prove anything.

2017-09-30 03:08:58 UTC  

Is existence hard for you to comprehend?

2017-09-30 03:09:02 UTC  

What are you doing right now?

2017-09-30 03:10:38 UTC  

That's not really the issue here though.

2017-09-30 03:10:47 UTC  

I came in late, what is the issue?

2017-09-30 03:11:00 UTC  

What the paper actually shows.

2017-09-30 03:11:27 UTC  

Forget the actual logical proof. I trust his logic is solid, but the proof isn't sound.

2017-09-30 03:13:03 UTC  

And what do you believe the paper shows -- or rather, what do you see missing?

2017-09-30 03:13:47 UTC  

I didn't read the paper posted (it elaborates on how the proof is begin put into a language that a computer proving system can verify

2017-09-30 03:14:05 UTC  

so we dont need that paper, we are just talkign about godels ontological proof

2017-09-30 03:14:09 UTC  

The paper's purpose is to show that the provers they are using work, not to prove the argument correct. Because there are axioms in the argument that the computer can't parse.

2017-09-30 03:15:03 UTC  

The ontological argument has been refuted many different ways over the years, I was under the impression going in that the paper somehow proved the argument valid, but that's not it's purpose at all.

2017-09-30 03:15:22 UTC  

Yeah a computer can't comprehend and determine 'positive' traits when there is no objective way to assign that characteristic.

2017-09-30 03:15:26 UTC  

It was showing the conversion.

2017-09-30 03:15:34 UTC  

So then why use it in the first place if you know it is as such?

2017-09-30 03:15:35 UTC  

I see I thought we were arguing the acutal proof

2017-09-30 03:15:36 UTC  

Then let's return the the proof itself. What issues do you see with it? What do you find missing in the proof?

2017-09-30 03:16:00 UTC  

Or, better yet, what issue do you find with his central premises, and the conclusion drawn?

2017-09-30 03:16:08 UTC  

Seems irrelevant to use a source then argue immediately after that it technically isn't correct or applicable

2017-09-30 03:17:07 UTC  

I didn't use the source originaly, it was shown to me and presented as proof of the argument's validity. Which it isn't, that's my only point.